Define: “Insurance”
The problem with requiring insurance companies to cover pre-existing conditions is that the companies are therefore not really offering “insurance.” If you crash your car and the next day go to Flo at Progressive Insurance, pay your premium and then immediately file a claim, prepare to serve some time in the slammer for fraud.
In Massachusetts, it doesn’t work this way.
Thousands of consumers are gaming Massachusetts’ 2006 health insurance law by buying insurance when they need to cover pricey medical care, such as fertility treatments and knee surgery, and then swiftly dropping coverage, a practice that insurance executives say is driving up costs for other people and small businesses.
In 2009 alone, 936 people signed up for coverage with Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts for three months or less and ran up claims of more than $1,000 per month while in the plan. Their medical spending while insured was more than four times the average for consumers who buy coverage on their own and retain it in a normal fashion, according to data the state’s largest private insurer provided the Globe.
The typical monthly premium for these short-term members was $400, but their average claims exceeded $2,200 per month. The previous year, the company’s data show it had even more high-spending, short-term members. Over those two years, the figures suggest the price tag ran into the millions.
The VikingPundit also notes that the insurance companies in Massachusetts are operating in the red and the state’s governor has refused to allow them to implement rate hikes that would cover their losses.
Today Massachusetts, tomorrow the U.S.
Add to the list of politicians whose future is in doubt because of the passage of Obamacare one Mitt Romney. After 2008, the former Massachusetts governor was considered by many to be the GOP front-runner, but his continued defense of the disastrous Massachusetts health care overhaul will likely mean he won’t make it far in the 2012 GOP primary.
One comment on “Define: “Insurance””
Tags
It sure will drive up costs and allow the dhimmies to scream that the insurance companies are hiking rates.
Gee somehow I don't think I should have to pay for someone who is a drug addict, drunkard, queer, or has sexually transmitted disease, nor someone who desires a sex change or tatoo removal.
So how about applying the same principles to flood insurance, fire, and casualty?
The Dhimmies must think people are as dull as their supporters.